Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 23:42:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 23:42:03 -0500 Received: from h24-77-26-115.gv.shawcable.net ([24.77.26.115]:10881 "EHLO phalynx") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 23:41:42 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Ryan Cumming To: dcinege@psychosis.com, Alexander Viro Subject: Re: Booting a modular kernel through a multiple streams file Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 20:41:31 -0800 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To:

In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On December 22, 2001 19:00, Dave Cinege wrote: > Excellent! You've settled on using using an archiver format nobody uses, Many file formats that require 'embedded' archives use cpio. RPM is one such file format. I think every single RPM distribution relying on cpio for the core of its package management system discounts your claim of 'nobody using it'. Just because you have not seen cpio directly used as an archive format doesn't mean it's unused. > instead of the defacto standard that's already been implemented by > atleast two people. tar and cpio are both POSIX standards. I fail to see how one is more 'defacto' than the other. As far as having tar already being implemented by at least two people, it really doesn't matter for a format as simple as cpio. Having a reference implementation for tar would be nice, as it is a hairy, complicated standard. The cpio format can be fully described in less than a page. > G-E-N-I-U-S! Grow up. Please. -Ryan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/